Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Bicycle Mechanics
Reload this Page >

Heavy IGH hub better with smaller or larger wheels?

Search
Notices
Bicycle Mechanics Broken bottom bracket? Tacoed wheel? If you're having problems with your bicycle, or just need help fixing a flat, drop in here for the latest on bicycle mechanics & bicycle maintenance.

Heavy IGH hub better with smaller or larger wheels?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 03-17-14, 10:46 PM
  #1  
adlai
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 810
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 289 Post(s)
Liked 54 Times in 34 Posts
Heavy IGH hub better with smaller or larger wheels?

Playing around with a nuVinci hub I picked up, darn thing is really really heavy.

So, as the question asks, is a hub this heavy better suited for a larger 700c wheel, or for smaller wheels, 26" or less?
adlai is offline  
Old 03-17-14, 10:50 PM
  #2  
jowilson
Senior Member
 
jowilson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 561

Bikes: 1992 Trek 800 Antelope, 1971 Triumph

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Heavy IGH hub is redundant. Hubs are almost never made to fit certain sizes of wheels. Heaviness of a hub doesn't determine anything at all, it just means the hub is heavy.
jowilson is offline  
Old 03-18-14, 06:40 AM
  #3  
rhenning
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,652
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 381 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 107 Times in 80 Posts
I suspect if you took the full drive train off a similar geared bike and weighted all the components you would fins there isn't as much difference as you think. IGH get rid of 2 derailluers, part of a chain one shifter and its cable and stops, and probably a few other bits and pieces. If you are weight weenie don't ise one. Roger
rhenning is offline  
Old 03-18-14, 07:13 AM
  #4  
Looigi
Senior Member
 
Looigi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 8,951
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 13 Times in 12 Posts
Regardless of wheel size, it has to support the weight of the bike and the rider. Hub weight is just a small part of that total.
Looigi is offline  
Old 03-18-14, 09:02 AM
  #5  
HillRider
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 33,656

Bikes: '96 Litespeed Catalyst, '05 Litespeed Firenze, '06 Litespeed Tuscany, '20 Surly Midnight Special, All are 3x10. It is hilly around here!

Mentioned: 39 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2026 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1,097 Times in 743 Posts
Wheel size is immaterial as long as the gearing is chosen appropriately. Hub weight is just hub weight. BTW, the nuVinci is so heavy (2450 grams, 5.4 pounds, as advertised) that losing the derailleurs and one shifter doesn't begin to compensate so don't even consider it if you want a really light bike.
HillRider is offline  
Old 03-18-14, 09:04 AM
  #6  
fietsbob
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: NW,Oregon Coast
Posts: 43,598

Bikes: 8

Mentioned: 197 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7607 Post(s)
Liked 1,359 Times in 865 Posts
I see them put in 349_16" Bike Friday Tikits, and 26" fat bikes By the bike companies .

Say no better, just an application to suit a chosen purpose ..

sprocket choices will determine where the gear range lies , the 1:1 is in the hub when the control is centered..


If freewheel/cog on hub is same size , smaller the wheel the bigger the chainring..
fietsbob is offline  
Old 03-18-14, 09:07 AM
  #7  
FBinNY 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New Rochelle, NY
Posts: 39,072

Bikes: too many bikes from 1967 10s (5x2)Frejus to a Sumitomo Ti/Chorus aluminum 10s (10x2), plus one non-susp mtn bike I use as my commuter

Mentioned: 141 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5982 Post(s)
Liked 2,905 Times in 1,613 Posts
If when asking about wheel size, you're thinking about rotational inertia, the hub is always at the center so that doesn't change. OTOH there are subtle differences.

1- the larger the wheel, the slower the rotating speed, so that would argue for larger wheels
2- the larger the wheel, the higher the torque loads within the hub, so that would argue smaller.

Neither is enough to be a deciding factor in any way, so decide based on your overall preference regarding the bike as a whole.

But, if you're in a very hilly area, and plan to push the limit for input gear ratio (chainring/rear sprocket), the smaller wheel will effectively give you the lower gearing without doing so. Here the benefit of lower internal torque could be meaningful. This could make a big difference if you're also very heavy.
__________________
FB
Chain-L site

An ounce of diagnosis is worth a pound of cure.

Just because I'm tired of arguing, doesn't mean you're right.

“One accurate measurement is worth a thousand expert opinions” - Adm Grace Murray Hopper - USN

WARNING, I'm from New York. Thin skinned people should maintain safe distance.
FBinNY is offline  
Old 03-18-14, 10:50 AM
  #8  
adlai
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 810
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 289 Post(s)
Liked 54 Times in 34 Posts
Originally Posted by FBinNY
If when asking about wheel size, you're thinking about rotational inertia, the hub is always at the center so that doesn't change. OTOH there are subtle differences.

1- the larger the wheel, the slower the rotating speed, so that would argue for larger wheels
2- the larger the wheel, the higher the torque loads within the hub, so that would argue smaller.

Neither is enough to be a deciding factor in any way, so decide based on your overall preference regarding the bike as a whole.

But, if you're in a very hilly area, and plan to push the limit for input gear ratio (chainring/rear sprocket), the smaller wheel will effectively give you the lower gearing without doing so. Here the benefit of lower internal torque could be meaningful. This could make a big difference if you're also very heavy.
Yes, I've been thinking along the lines you outlined.

It seems to me that large wheels are really useful for when you want to coast on relatively flat areas, because they seem to preserve momentum better than smaller wheels.

But for more varied riding, a smaller wheel might be better because it...should be easier to start from a standstill.

I wonder how a mountain bike could take say...24 inch wheels. The only problem likely would be the crank hitting the ground.
adlai is offline  
Old 03-18-14, 11:01 AM
  #9  
FBinNY 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New Rochelle, NY
Posts: 39,072

Bikes: too many bikes from 1967 10s (5x2)Frejus to a Sumitomo Ti/Chorus aluminum 10s (10x2), plus one non-susp mtn bike I use as my commuter

Mentioned: 141 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5982 Post(s)
Liked 2,905 Times in 1,613 Posts
Originally Posted by adlai
Yes, I've been thinking along the lines you outlined.

It seems to me that large wheels are really useful for when you want to coast on relatively flat areas, because they seem to preserve momentum better than smaller wheels.
You misread, or chose to selectively read my comment about momentum.

As I said, the difference wasn't enough to consider a factor. This becomes obvious if you consider the difference in momentum, as compared to the total momentum of the bicycle and rider. So we're talking about something on the order of 1% or so. However, with a heavy hub, smaller wheels mean faster rotation, so that works against you, not for you.

The reason that larger wheeled bikes seem to have more rolling momentum is because the larger wheel has a more favorable strike angle on bumps. If you split the vectors when a wheel strikes a bump of any given size, you immediately see that the larger the wheel the smaller the rearward vector.

Take this to an extreme and compare a bicycle to a skateboard. Both hit a 1.5" step climbing a driveway. The bicycle rolls over it with a minor jolt, but the step is a wall to the skateboard which stops dead and throws the rider off. So, in the real world of roads that aren't railroad tracks, bigger wheels roll easier.

As I said, the ONLY consideration that would make smaller wheels better, is the torque consideration based on gearing, weight and terrain. Otherwise (despite claims to the contrary) bigger IS better.
__________________
FB
Chain-L site

An ounce of diagnosis is worth a pound of cure.

Just because I'm tired of arguing, doesn't mean you're right.

“One accurate measurement is worth a thousand expert opinions” - Adm Grace Murray Hopper - USN

WARNING, I'm from New York. Thin skinned people should maintain safe distance.

Last edited by FBinNY; 03-18-14 at 11:13 AM.
FBinNY is offline  
Old 03-18-14, 11:35 AM
  #10  
dabac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 8,688
Mentioned: 46 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1074 Post(s)
Liked 295 Times in 222 Posts
Originally Posted by adlai
I wonder how a mountain bike could take say...24 inch wheels.
There are a couple of DH rigs that use 24" wheels b/c of strength. But those frames are made accordingly, and cranking isn't that big in DH-ing.
They're too heavy to use for a valid comparison anyhow.
dabac is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
bikeboy
Bicycle Mechanics
7
08-30-22 12:47 PM
jyl
Electronics, Lighting, & Gadgets
10
12-24-14 04:24 PM
harshbarj
Commuting
29
10-11-14 04:49 AM
WestMass
Commuting
164
03-28-14 02:54 PM
chico1st
Classic & Vintage
14
03-21-11 06:47 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.